Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-mkpzs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T17:49:05.708Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The development of intensification scales in noun-intensifying uses of adjectives: sources, paths and mechanisms of change1

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  08 June 2011

LOBKE GHESQUIÈRE  and
KRISTIN DAVIDSE
LOBKE GHESQUIÈRE
Affiliation:
Department of Linguistics, University of Leuven, Blijde Inkomststraat 21 PO Box 3308, 3000 Leuven, BelgiumLobke.Ghesquiere@arts.kuleuven.be, Kristin.Davidse@arts.kuleuven.be
KRISTIN DAVIDSE
Affiliation:
Department of Linguistics, University of Leuven, Blijde Inkomststraat 21 PO Box 3308, 3000 Leuven, BelgiumLobke.Ghesquiere@arts.kuleuven.be, Kristin.Davidse@arts.kuleuven.be
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This article is concerned with the sources, paths and mechanisms of change leading to noun-intensifying uses of adjectives, such as a complete mess, a whole bunch of crazy stuff, a particular threat. Such intensifying uses may develop from property-describing uses of adjectives, as discussed by Traugott (1989), Adamson (2000) and Paradis (2000, 2001, 2008). As pointed out by Bolinger (1972: 61), noun-intensifying uses may also develop from elements of the NP that have identifying functions, which can be either quantifying-identifying or identifying in the strict sense. The aim of this article is to provide a new synthesis of how these three pathways lead towards noun-intensifying meanings, focusing on the question of how the intensification scales necessary to these uses are acquired. We posit that the concepts of open and closed intensification scales (Kennedy & McNally 2005) can generalize over the intensifying uses from the three sources. The main mechanism of change is the foregrounding of the gradability mode (Paradis 2000), quantification scale or other implied scale of the immediate source uses. The initial shift takes place in collocational environments that overlap with those of the source uses. Due to later collocational extension, noun-intensifying uses may come to incorporate intensification scales unpredicted by their sources.

Type
Research Article
Information
English Language & Linguistics , Volume 15 , Issue 2: The structure of the noun phrase in English: synchronic and diachronic explorations , July 2011 , pp. 251 - 277
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2011

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Corpora

CB: Collins Wordbanks Online.Google Scholar
CLMETEV: Hendrik De Smet. 2005. The Corpus of Late Modern English Texts (extended version). perswww.kuleuven.be/~u0044428/Google Scholar
PPCEME: Kroch, Anthony, Beatrice Santorini & Lauren Delfs. 2004. Penn–Helsinki Parsed Corpus of Early Modern English. www.ling.upenn.edu/hist-corpora/PPCEME-RELEASE-1/Google Scholar
PPCME2: Kroch, Anthony & Ann Taylor. 2000. Penn–Helsinki Parsed Corpus of Middle English, 2nd edition. www.ling.upenn.edu/hist-corpora/PPCME2-RELEASE-2/Google Scholar
YCOE: Taylor, Ann, A. Warren, S. Pintzuk & F. Beths. 2003. The York–Toronto– Helsinki Parsed Corpus of Old English Prose. www-users.york.ac.uk/~lang22/YCOE/YcoeHome.htmGoogle Scholar

References

Adamson, Sylvia. 2000. A lovely little example: Word order options and category shift in the premodifying string. In Fischer, Olga, Rosenbach, Anette & Stein, Dieter (eds.), Pathways of change: Grammaticalization in English, 39–66. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bolinger, Dwight. 1967. Adjective comparison: A semantic scale. Journal of English Linguistics 1, 2–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bolinger, Dwight. 1972. Degree words. The Hague: Mouton.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brems, Lieselotte. 2003. Measure noun constructions: An instance of semantically-driven grammaticalization. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 8, 283–312.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brems, Lieselotte. 2010. Size noun constructions as collocationally constrained constructions: Lexical and grammaticalized uses. English Language and Linguistics 14, 83–109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brzyk, Tom. 2008. The development of emphasizer uses in the noun phrase: A diachronic study of mere and sheer. MA dissertation, University of Leuven.Google Scholar
Davidse, Kristin. 1999. The semantics of cardinal versus enumerative existential constructions. Cognitive Linguistics 10, 203–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davidse, Kristin. 2004. The interaction of quantification and identification in English determiners. In Achard, Michel & Kemmer, Suzanne (eds.), Language, culture, and mind, 507–33. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Declerck, Renaat. 1991. A comprehensive descriptive grammar of English. Tokyo: Kaitakusha.Google Scholar
Diessel, Holger. 2006. Demonstratives, joint attention, and the emergence of grammar. Cognitive Linguistics 17, 463–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Diewald, Gabriele. 2006. Context types in grammaticalization as constructions. Constructions (Special volume 1: Constructions all over – Case studies and theoretical implications.) www.constructionsonline.de/articles/specvol1.Google Scholar
Eckardt, Regine. Forthcoming. The many careers of polarity sensitive items. In Breban, Tine, Brems, Lot, Davidse, Kristin & Mortelmans, Tanja (eds.), Grammaticalization and language change: Origins, criteria and outcomes. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Evans, Nick & Wilkins, David. 2000. In the mind's ear: The semantic extensions of perception verbs in Australian languages. Language 76, 546–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ghesquière, Lobke. 2009. From determining to emphasizing meanings: The adjectives of specificity. Folia Linguistica 43, 311–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ghesquière, Lobke. 2010. On the subjectification and intersubjectification paths followed by the adjectives of completeness. In Davidse, Kristin, Vandelanotte, Lieven & Cuyckens, Hubert (eds.), Subjectification, intersubjectification and grammaticalization, 277–314. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Halliday, M. A. K. 1994. An introduction to Functional Grammar. London: Arnold.Google Scholar
Hopper, Paul. 1991. On some principles of grammaticization. In Traugott, Elizabeth Closs & Heine, Bernd (eds.), Approaches to grammaticalization, 17–35. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hopper, Paul. 1998. Emergent grammar. In Tomasello, Michael (ed.), The new psychology of language, 155–75. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Kennedy, Christopher & McNally, Louise. 2005. Scale structure, degree modification, and the semantics of gradable predicates. Language 81, 345–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
König, Ekkehard. 1989. On the historical development of focus particles. In Weydt, Harald (ed.), Sprechen mit Partikeln, 318–29. Berlin: de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Langacker, Ronald W. 1991. Foundations of cognitive grammar, vol. II: Descriptive application. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Lorenz, Gunther. 2002. Really worthwhile or not really significant? A corpus-based approach to delexicalization and grammaticalization of intensifiers in Modern English. In Wischer, Ilse & Diewald, Gabriele (eds.), New reflections on grammaticalization, 143–61. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lyons, John. 1977. Semantics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Martin, Jim. 1992. English text: System and structure. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Milsark, Gary. 1977. Toward an explanation of certain peculiarities of the existential construction in English. Linguistic Analysis 3, 1–30.Google Scholar
Nevalainen, Terttu. 1991. But, only, just: Focusing adverbial change in Modern English 1500–1900. Mémoires de la Société Néophilologique de Helsinki. Helsinki: Sociéte Néophilologique.Google Scholar
Nevalainen, Terttu. 1994. Aspects of adverbial change in Early Modern English. In Kastovsky, Dieter (ed.), Studies in Early Modern English, 248–59. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
OALD: Hornby, A. S., Sally Wehmeier & Michael Ashby (eds.). 2000. Oxford advanced learner's dictionary of current English. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
OED: Murray, James A. H., Henry Brodly, W. A. Craigie & C. T. Onions. 1993. The Oxford English dictionary. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Available online at www.oed.com.Google Scholar
Paradis, Carita. 2000. Reinforcing adjectives: A cognitive semantic perspective on grammaticalization. In Bermúdez-Otero, Ricardo, Denison, David, Hogg, Richard & McCully, Christopher (eds.), Generative theory and corpus studies: A dialogue from 10 ICEHL, 233–58. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Paradis, Carita. 2001. Adjectives and boundedness. Cognitive Linguistics 12, 47–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Paradis, Carita. 2008. Configurations, construals and change: Expressions of DEGREE. English Language and Linguistics 12, 317–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Paradis, Carita & Willners, Caroline. 2006. Antonymy and negation: The boundedness hypothesis. Journal of Pragmatics 38, 1051–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Quirk, Randolph, Greenbaum, Sidney, Leech, Geoffrey & Svartvik, Jan. 1985. A comprehensive grammar of the English language. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Saxon, Leslie. 1990. On one's own: The semantics and pragmatics of reflexives. In Georgopoulos, Carol P. & Ishihara, Roberta L. (eds.), Interdisciplinary approaches to language: Essays in honor of S.-Y. Kuroda, 501–17. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
Sinclair, John. 1990. Collins COBUILD English grammar. London: HarperCollins.Google Scholar
Traugott, Elizabeth Closs. 1989. Pragmatic strengthening and grammaticalization. In Proceedings of the fourteenth annual meeting of the Berkeley Linguistic Society, 406–16.Google Scholar
Vandewinkel, Sigi & Davidse, Kristin. 2008. The interlocking paths of development towards emphasizer adjective pure. Journal of Historical Pragmatics 9, 255–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar